[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It is again amusing to see how the West almost instinctively finds ways to criticize Russians. Below I pick 3 examples in this article:

Originally Posted by Article

Analysts said Russian APCs are not well protected against strikes by large-caliber weapons or land mines, which is one reason why troops often prefer to travel on top.

True, but to a great extent, it is an intentional design choice. The priority of the average Russian BMP/BTR, beyond relatively minimal protection, is mobility. Such as being able to cross rivers before a new bridge is laid.

"It was remarkable that they shot down a number of Russian fighters, which Russia probably did not expect," said Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. Marcel de Haas, Russia and security expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.

Can this man justify his opinion? I'm sure Russia never quite had any illusions that war is free or even cheap. I'm sure the Russians want to work on their reconnaissance, but did the possibility that the fighters were lost because the Georgians were somewhat effective in placing and using antiaircraft complexes even occur to the man?

"Missiles and rockets would negate the need for large-scale troop deployments in the way they had to carry them out," said Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Langton really says a lot more for his own beliefs about warfare than Russian strengths or deficiencies. He apparently believes in the attritional model of warfare.

Every time I see NATO or the US fight a recent war, and again here, I can't help but remember the supposed differences between Soviet and NATO artillery doctrine (as described by the US). The Soviets supposedly believe in Fire Destruction; the West believes in Fire Support. The whole distinction is a bit iffy to me but the gist seems to be that the Soviets believe in the primacy of Fire, and Maneuver only exploits after Fire destroys everything, while in the West, Fire supports ground Maneuver, and Manuever is dominant. I suppose I don't have to say this, but this is usually presented in such a way that the Soviets look dumb and Attritionalist and the West looks smart and Maneuverish, without a whole lot of visible justification.

Then I see Desert Storm, which was basically about 100 days of air offensive (Fire Destruction) and about 100 hours of ground maneuver. And then I see Kosovo, which is an attempt to win using only Air Offensives (that is, only Fire Destruction). So who really believes in Support and who really believes in Destruction.

Had Russia gathered its PGMs and attacked Georgia the way Langton suggests, even granting them NATO efficiency, based on Kosovo, at least 4 things will probably happen:
1) They will probably still be somewhere in the Bomb Georgia phase, with no objectives achieved.
2) Georgia and S-whatver-vili will have many more pictures of Russian bombs blowing up their homes (because PGMs have a nasty tendency to fail and fly wild).
3) They waste a lot more money because such bombs are expensive.
4) The West screams even louder thanks to 2. Further, the pity factor of 2, and the possibility of stopping Russia just by sending some planes, may be just the thing that causes the West to militarily intervene. Not too likely, granted, but a lot more likely than if they had to actually sent ground boots to stop the Russians.

Gee, great tactics, Langton.